the bulgarian exarchete - fyromians then voted to join it

[tankistabg]

The Bulgarian Exarchate (1870 - 1912)



This map represents the boundaries of the Bulgarian Exarchate. The quarrel about the establishment of the Bulgarian National-Church lasted 40 years; it began 1830 and found an end on the 28th of February 1870 (ancient style) by a Turkish Ferman
Sultan’s Ferman for the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate.
which establish the Bulgarian Exarchate at Constantinople. - At first the Bulgarian people demanded the right of electing themselves their own bishops, who should have to belong to the Bulgarian nationality too. The first towns to declare such desire were Uscub (Skopje) and Samokov (in the year 1833). But the Greek Patriarchate was decidedly opposed to it and the controversy took two new forms: the demand of the Bulgarian Bishops was increased with the desire for religious service of their own and schools of their own, the Greek Bishops in the Bulgarian Eparchies were openly and violently persecuted. This happened in many towns of Bulgaria, Thracia and Macedonia. The Ferman of the Sultan relating to the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate, expressly denominated in the first paragraph of the 10-th article as Bulgarian the following Eparchies: Rustschuk, Silistra, Varna, Schumen, Tirnovo, Lovetsch, Vratza, Vidin, Sofia, Kiustendil, Samokov, Nisch, Pirot and Veless; the second paragraph of the same article decides that other Eparchies too should be allowed to acknowledge the Exarchie if at least 2/3 of their Christian inhabitants should demand this. According to this second paragraph of the Ferman a "people's-vote" was made by the Turkish authorities under control of the Greek Patriarchate. This „people's-vote" proved that the largest part of Macedonia wanted to acknowledge the Bulgarian Exarchate, whereupon bishops were appointed for Uscub, Ochrida and Monastir; (for Veless, expressly named in the Ferman, such appointment had already taken place). But soon after this occurred the Bulgarian insurrections of 1875-76, which were followed by the Russo-Turkish war, which events exposed the Bulgarians in the eyes of the Turks. Unfortunately the „people's-vote" could not be completed in the southern part of Macedonia and, where it was completed, Bulgarian Bishops were not appointed in all of these Eparchies; and where such had tried to go, they were thence driven away by the authorities. The attempts made 1884/1885 to send Bulgarian Bishops in Macedonia failed on account of the protest of the Greek Patriarchate, of Serbia and of Greece. Soon after came the union of the two Bulgarias which newly compromised the Bulgarians in the eyes of the Turks. Only in the year 1890, new Bulgarian Bishops were appointed at Uscub and at Ochrida; in the year 1894 bishops came to Veless and Nevrokop, and 1897 to Monastir, Debar and Strumitza. The other Eparchies never had any Bulgarian Bishops. The Turkish Government only allowed the Bulgarian clergy of these Eparchies to represent the Bulgarians before the local authorities and to manage their own school-matters.
The white-hatched places on the map denote those Eparchies that did not get Bulgarian Bishops.

[Demetrius Doukas]

Yes tankistabg that is True the scopians were never Macedonians but always in the enemy side, actually some so called "Grecomani" and more educated and enterprising elements of course joined the Ecumenical patriarchate because they saw clearly that the "devised" from the Bulgarians "Macedonism" theories were inteded for their brainwashing and actually working for the expansion of bulgaria which they opposed because have understood that first the bulgars were not right and second prefered to be Hellenes.

In regard to the so called exarchate: in the Balkans it is better all to be under the Ecumenical throne with Archbishops. Bulgaria and even Serbia have no potential to play "Patriach", secondly that will work more unifying instead we have been witnesess of super isolationizm and nationalism leading to more wars, not to mention that by breaking from Constantinople the monastiries and church life in bulgaria declined to a great extent and finally led them to communism, but they choosed their fate themselves................

[tankistabg]

Originally Posted by Demetrios Doukas

Yes tankistabg that is True the scopians were never Macedonians but always in the enemy side,

Enemy to you, not enemy to them. They were on their own side as they are bulgarians!

actually some so called "Grecomani" and more educated and enterprising elements of course joined the Ecumenical patriarchate because they saw clearly that the "devised" from the Bulgarians "Macedonism" theories were inteded for their brainwashing and actually working for the expansion of bulgaria which they opposed because have understood that first the bulgars were not right and second prefered to be Hellenes.

This Is not a matter of choise. Nationality is something nobody chooses, and the Skopians are bulgarian\s.

In regard to the so called exarchate: in the Balkans it is better all to be under the Ecumenical throne with Archbishops.

Ya right

Bulgaria and even Serbia have no potential to play "Patriach", secondly that will work more unifying instead we have been witnesess of super isolationizm and nationalism leading to more wars

Every nation has the right of its independent church.

, not to mention that by breaking from Constantinople the monastiries and church life in bulgaria declined to a great extent and finally led them to communism, but they choosed their fate themselves................

Bulgarians WERE NEVER strongly religios. Only 2% of all bulgarians declared they are stongly believing in christianity.

[Demetrius Doukas]

QUOTE:
Enemy to you, not enemy to them. They were on their own side as they are bulgarians!

Yes I agree.
QUOTE:
This Is not a matter of choise. Nationality is something nobody chooses, and the Skopians are bulgarian\s.

Not entirelly with the time the nationality can change after generation or two for example many slavs Hellenized themselves.
Ya right

QUOTE:
Every nation has the right of its independent church.

Yes that is why i wrote "they choose.......", I just said my opinion for the situation in the balkans and what I think is better.

QUOTE:
Bulgarians WERE NEVER strongly religios. Only 2% of all bulgarians declared they are stongly believing in christianity.

Yes I have saw, maybe that is why they are so fond of non-christian protubulgaric rituals.

[tankistabg]

Originally Posted by Demetrios Doukas

Not entirelly with the time the nationality can change after generation or two for example many slavs Hellenized themselves.

Yes but those hellenized slavs can NEVER be real greeks. Brainwashing is wrong. The fact that these slavs were hellenized doens't mean they have connection with the anceint greeks

Yes that is why i wrote "they choose.......", I just said my opinion for the situation in the balkans and what I think is better.

Hmm, maybe its too idealistic. I don't believe in such an union.

Yes I have saw, maybe that is why they are so fond of non-christian protubulgaric rituals.

Yea. But hey, even you have ancient greek pagans, don't you?

[Draco]

Originally Posted by tankistabg

Yes but those hellenized slavs can NEVER be real greeks. Brainwashing is wrong. The fact that these slavs were hellenized doens't mean they have connection with the anceint greeks

You don't have to have a connection to the ancient Greeks (who weren't even an ethnic group) to be a modern ethnic Greek; being brought up as one suffices.

Originally Posted by tankistabg

Quote: Yes I have saw, maybe that is why they are so fond of non-christian protubulgaric rituals.

Yea. But hey, even you have ancient greek pagans, don't you?

Proves nothing other than the fact that there are weirdos on both sides of the GR-BG border. Those religions have been reconstructed, they have not enjoyed a continuous existence into the present day.

[tankistabg]

Originally Posted by Draco

You don't have to have a connection to the ancient Greeks (who weren't even an ethnic group) to be a modern ethnic Greek; being brought up as one suffices.

So you support the mogreling and mixing between the nations! I dont!

Proves nothing other than the fact that there are weirdos on both sides of the GR-BG border. Those religions have been reconstructed, they have not enjoyed a continuous existence into the present day.

Did you just called me a "weirdo"?

[Draco]

Originally Posted by tankistabg

So you support the mogreling and mixing between the nations! I dont!

I don't support it nor oppose it. I just recognize it as what it is, a fact of life.

Originally Posted by tankistabg

Did you just called me a "weirdo"?

WTF? You're a neopagan?

[tankistabg]

Originally Posted by Draco

I don't support it nor oppose it. I just recognize it as what it is, a fact of life.

Real life... yea right. Globalisation appeared only 50 years ago. Until then, every nation had preserved its unique genes. Even today there is a pretty good percent of people who have the pure conscious that marrying a foreigner is simply WRONG.

WTF? You're a neopagan?

Yes!

[Draco]

Originally Posted by tankistabg

Real life... yea right. Globalisation appeared only 50 years ago. Until then, every nation had preserved its unique genes. Even today there is a pretty good percent of people who have the pure conscious that marrying a foreigner is simply WRONG.

Globalisation is irrelevant, the movement of peoples is not. When the Bulgars arrived in the Balkans they didn't find a deserted land; they found other ethnic groups with whom they integrated and were later assimilated by them due to their numerical superiority. Original Bulgar ancestry among present-day Bulgarians is minimal due to the numerical superiority of the pre-existing Slavs. Of course those Slavs were not ethnically pure either, they came upon and assimilated the groups that were there before them. God knows how many ethnic groups the Bulgars had assimilated before arriving in the Balkans.